Just try to answer as much as possible. I really want to see their thought process when deciding that Obama is a good president and Bush is bad(they did not say it, but many do it seems). I will not care either way about either of them, without someone elaborating, even though the media tells me that Bush is Satan and Obama is Jesus, while rich people tell me the opposite. Long story short, I would like to hear your opinion and the thought process behind it, so that I myself, can reach a logical and well educated decision on my stance on this subject.

He couldn't possibly be any worse than George Bush.

President Polk campaigned on the foundations of manifest destiny which was the fervor of the time.  He stated with the Oregon territory, which was in dispute at the time with Britain, that he would get all of it for America.  Much of this western expansion fervor is what got him elected over the politically savvy Henry Clay.  However, upon being elected, he didn't get all of the Oregon territory.  Instead compromised with Britain and got about half of it which set up today's boundaries on the northwest region.  Polk was a smart man and he knew he couldn't get all of it so he was smart in compromising.  Was a good decision.  But not what he campaigned under.  So no, he didn't fulfill all of his campaign promises. 

I'm not going to say Polk was a bad president as I think he was pretty decent.  But most presidents don't fulfill all their campaign promises because they realize they can't.  There is always a difference between ones campaigning and ones in the White House.  Luckily he was smart enough to know that as war with Britain wouldn't have been good for America.  

An odd thing is that one of the best things to happen to George W. Bush's approval rating was the election of Barack Obama ...

I'm (somewhat) joking; but, without the constant bashing and with time to consider the difficult/complexity of his presidency, many people are starting to realize that he was wasn't as bad of a president as some people made him out to be.

Presidents don't operate in a vacuum.  Promises might not be kept for any number of reasons.  Congress is usually involved.  Circumstances change (see 9/11 or the financial collapse).

It depends on your political views and which direction you want things to go.  Are you closer to Obama and the Dems or are you closer to the Republicans?  Their are some significant differences in the direction each side wants to take things.  You should base your decision on who to vote for based on policies and not a "cool attitude".

Scars of old hurt less when your bleeding today.  Just makes sense really.  Not to mention, once people exit the constant media spotlight (whether positive or negative) it always tends to make people more favorable.  I think we all like Paris Hilton more now than we did a few years ago because we don't see here face everyday.  Not having Bush in the front of the news everyday just makes him seem more normal to people.  

Personally I never had too many issues with Bush, as I haven't had with too many presidents.  Most of them just try to work hard to do what's best for their country.  It's other forces that really taint the whole process of their image and morals.

Exactly. That is why I wished for those other people to elaborate, so that I could find out if they were as ignorant to the situation as me.It is sad to see that everyone I see/ talk to hates Bush, but I have yet to see him do anything that would warrant such hate. It seems like most people hate him for what happened in his presidency, even if it was out of his hands. If there are reasons for hating Bush because of things he did, please list them because I do not know anything about this subject.

It was much better 12 months ago infact, they just weren't hiring. Theory suggests business wanted the Repubs back in charge, and in favour of rights destroying corporates, so they continued to slow the economic rebound untill after November.

I don't think I have enough time in the day...

Very well, I can give you a list of things that Bush did that was bad. Admittedly, you are right that most that dislike him do so because he was a Republican, or it was/is simply popular to dislike him.

Anyways:

• Starting 2 very costly wars (cost a lot of money which added to the federal deficit)
• Ratified the Patrot Act (loss of freedoms)
• The bank bailouts
• Expansion of federal government/spending
• Lack of spending political capital when he had majorities in congress/senate.

The truth is, Bush could of done a LOT of good for the nation, domestically, but did very little. With majorities in both houses, he could of done a lot more - like what Obama has done in inverse. He could of privatized Social Security (one of his goals), pushed through to drill in ANWAR/promoted energy independence, reduced government spending by vetoing horrible congressional budgets, ect....But he did none of that.

That isn't to say that I hate Bush. I generally like the guy, and voted for him twice. However, having a more nuianced position on spending issues, and wanting less government...You begin to understand that Bush was a pretty bad president in that respect. Even worse was that he had the power of the pen - like few other presidents have had - and instead focused on 2 wars in the Middle East.